Harsh sentence

Skylinehead

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interesting this thread has probably reversed people's attitudes on crime and penalties, with the left supporting a more draconian sentences and the right opposing in this particular case.

Oh so interesting to have the left and right brought up irrelevantly in yet another AH thread :rolleyes:

BBFAN

Dante7 wrote: »

Yeah, I've obviously sexually assaulted women and have upcoming court cases. Or maybe I have very personal experience of a paedophile raping girls and getting a lesser sentence and that is what annoyed me.

Just because someone who did worse got a lesser sentence does not mean that this person shouldn't get any sentence at all. That's a ridiculous assumption.

Any paedophile who raped girls should obviously get a much more severe sentence. That does not mean that people who commit lesser crimes should walk free.

Dante7

BBFAN wrote: »

Just because someone who did worse got a lesser sentence does not mean that this person shouldn't get any sentence at all. That's a ridiculous assumption.

Any paedophile who raped girls should obviously get a much more severe sentence. That does not mean that people who commit lesser crimes should walk free.

I didn't say any of that. I was replying to your contention, that as the OP, I was likely to have committed such acts and created the thread in an attempt to get some sort of support. I simply replied with the actual reason as to why I created the thread, and ignored your disgusting slur.

I think the sentence was very harsh. It's a two and a half year sentence for touching someone. No violence, no threats, no coercion. If a woman got into bed with a man (regardless of whether or not she thought he was her partner), and touched his dick, there is no chance that it would get to court, let alone attract a two and a half year sentence.

I made the post originally as I thought it was a harsh, inconsistent sentence, but reading through the replies now, I am more shocked at the amount of replies stating that all sexual contact with a sleeping partner is assault. This has definitely not been my life experience. I have had four long(ish) term relationships ranging from ten years down to one year. In all of these relationships we would occasionally wake each up with sexual contact. Usually in the mornings, but sometimes in the middle of the night. It wasn't sticking fingers in like fumbling for change down the back of the sofa, but would be much more languid and flowing. This would obviously be consensual behaviour that evolved naturally and would be considered as implied consent. I thought most established couples would engage in this.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

I think the sentence was very harsh. It's a two and a half year sentence for touching someone. No violence, no threats, no coercion. If a woman got into bed with a man (regardless of whether or not she thought he was her partner), and touched his dick, there is no chance that it would get to court, let alone attract a two and a half year sentence.

You’re surely aware that you’re attempting to compare two completely different circumstances there though? Not to mention the fact that one scenario actually happened, whereas the other is a completely made up hypothetical of your own choosing, when the reality is you actually have no way of determining what way a case would go if the victim were male and the accused were female.

Of course it stands to reason in the circumstances you present that a woman could not possibly be found guilty in those circumstances if the male victim never makes a complaint to the authorities! What anyone else would or wouldn’t choose to do in similar circumstances is entirely irrelevant to the choices an individual makes for themselves In their circumstances.

Given your attempt to handwave away the man’s actions in this particular case as “touching someone”, I don’t imagine any amount of explaining would help you to understand why the Judge handed down the sentence they did. All your hand waving does explain however, is why you are of the opinion that the sentence in this particular case was too harsh.

Dante7

You are mistaking my questioning of the harshness of the sentence with me trying to completely dismiss the offence. I have made my position clear that I simply believe this to be a very harsh sentence for an offence that is at the lower scale of such offences, and that it is completely inconsistent with other headline sentences for similar offences.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

You are mistaking my questioning of the harshness of the sentence with me trying to completely dismiss the offence. I have made my position clear that I simply believe this to be a very harsh sentence for an offence that is at the lower scale of such offences, and that it is completely inconsistent with other headline sentences for similar offences.

I don’t think you’re completely trying to dismiss the offence. I think you’re purposely trying to play down the gravity of the offence in the first place, and secondly you’re wilfully ignoring the fact that the defendant plead not guilty and showed no remorse for their actions. Those are two factors why the sentence was as harsh as it was, mitigated by the defendants previous good character and their employment history, for which the Judge suspended the final 18 months of the sentence.

Judges, like most people, don’t take too kindly to people who make work for them, and if the defendant had simply plead guilty and shown remorse for their actions on the night in question, it would have been far more likely that having saved everyone involved, including the victim, the expense and time and everything else involved in a trial - they would have more likely received a suspended sentence for their actions that night, and there likely wouldn’t have been a word in the media about the case, as there isn’t in most cases which aren’t reported on in the media.

Those reasons alone would explain the severity of the sentence in this particular case, nothing to do with any hypothetical circumstances where the genders are simply reversed and the person hasn’t chosen to make a complaint to the authorities.

Dante7

I agree with nearly all of that, which leads us on to where we probably disagree. And that is the reasons which led to a low scale offence attracting a headline sentence. You've outlined the probable reasons and I disagree with how law was dispensed here. I would fully expect this sentence to be reviewed on appeal.

The two and a half year sentence has to be problematic.

batgoat

Dante7 wrote: »

I agree with nearly all of that, which leads us on to where we probably disagree. And that is the reasons which led to a low scale offence attracting a headline sentence. You've outlined the probable reasons and I disagree with how law was dispensed here. I would fully expect this sentence to be reviewed on appeal.

The two and a half year sentence has to be problematic.

He faces a year in jail. Most of the sentence is suspended.. His lack of remorse is deeply worrying and by the looks of things, he has had a considerable negative impact on the victim.

Dante7

batgoat wrote: »

He faces a year in jail. Most of the sentence is suspended.. His lack of remorse is deeply worrying and by the looks of things, he has had a considerable negative impact on the victim.

It's a two and a half year sentence for drunkenly getting into bed beside someone and touching their vagina. Can you not see how it is possible to both condemn this behaviour but also feel that the sentence is very harsh?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interesting this thread has probably reversed people's attitudes on crime and penalties, with the left supporting a more draconian sentences and the right opposing in this particular case.

A year. A year. That is hardly draconian for somebody who was found guilty of sexual assault. People have really latched on to the notion that he did what he did in error. But the people deciding the matter were not convinced of that.

Ariadne

Regarding the verdict, if it was really an accidental assault and the guy was remorseful then I feel like a year is a bit too harsh. However, we don't have all of the details and the impact on the victim needs to be considered too. I have a feeling there is more to this story than what we can read in the article, I'm sure there were reasons to suspect it wasn't accidental assault.

With regards to touching a sleeping partner, I have done so in the past and I thought it was quite a normal thing to do. I mean in the sense that I put my hand into a partner's boxers but with the intention of waking them up, not to have a creepy fondle while they're asleep. I'd also have no issue with my partner touching me in a sexual way to wake me up and initiate sex (Well I might if I'm tired!). However, if I woke up to find someone fingering me with no intention of waking me to get me involved, well that would certainly freak me out. I guess people have different boundaries but I never would have thought that a partner would feel like I assaulted them if I touched them sexually in order to wake them up for sex.

GreeBo

Succubus_ wrote: »

Regarding the verdict, if it was really an accidental assault and the guy was remorseful then I feel like a year is a bit too harsh. However, we don't have all of the details and the impact on the victim needs to be considered too. I have a feeling there is more to this story than what we can read in the article, I'm sure there were reasons to suspect it wasn't accidental assault.

Its certainly possible, but we have to go on what we have in the article on here and to me at least, that means take him at his word.

Believing him or not, some here seem to think that the sentence should wholly be based on the impact to the victim and intent shouldn't come into it. I disagree.

With regards to touching a sleeping partner, I have done so in the past and I thought it was quite a normal thing to do. I mean in the sense that I put my hand into a partner's boxers but with the intention of waking them up, not to have a creepy fondle while they're asleep. I'd also have no issue with my partner touching me in a sexual way to wake me up and initiate sex (Well I might if I'm tired!). However, if I woke up to find someone fingering me with no intention of waking me to get me involved, well that would certainly freak me out. I guess people have different boundaries but I never would have thought that a partner would feel like I assaulted them if I touched them sexually in order to wake them up for sex.

Well according to some on here you are both guilty of sexual assault!

jimgoose

GreeBo wrote: »

...Well according to some on here you are both guilty of sexual assault!

I wouldn't consider it sexual assault, but waking a sleeping partner like that "for sex" is certainly rude and a bit weird, I think. I was talking upthread about an affectionate intimate touch of a partner who is in bed but still awake, albeit only just.

GreeBo

jimgoose wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it sexual assault, but waking a sleeping partner like that "for sex" is certainly rude and a bit weird, I think. I was talking upthread about an affectionate intimate touch of a partner who is in bed but still awake, albeit only just.

**You** may think its rude and a bit weird but that doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

I'm also amazed that you can draw a distinction between keeping someone awake "for sex" and waking them up "for sex".

jimgoose

GreeBo wrote: »

**You** may think its rude and a bit weird but that doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

I'm also amazed that you can draw a distinction between keeping someone awake "for sex" and waking them up "for sex".

I did nothing of the kind.

Ariadne

jimgoose wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it sexual assault, but waking a sleeping partner like that "for sex" is certainly rude and a bit weird, I think. I was talking upthread about an affectionate intimate touch of a partner who is in bed but still awake, albeit only just.

Maybe I'd consider it annoying if it was the middle of the night but if it was morning time and that's how they were waking me up then I wouldn't consider it to be a bad wake up call and vice versa.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't know if this thread is funny or sad. You would swear from some of the replies that if a guy can't go straight to his partner's sexual organs while in bed together, his sex life will be over. Top tip lads if you want to wake her up, maybe start kissing the back of her neck, her shoulders and arms and on your slow journey downwards, I think you'll get your answer to the consent question. And if she doesn't wake up at all leave her alone. I feel really sorry for some women if they wake up to fingers already inside them and yet some men here seem to think that's normal behaviour. Apart from anything else it shows a very poor understanding of how the female body and arousal works.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes, in fact regarding the guy in this case and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he thought it was his girlfriend, if his sexual skill level wasn't so inadequate, and he had instead began by stroking her cheek or her hair or kissing her shoulders etc instead of going straight to his end target, it's highly unlikely he would be behind bars now. (As the girl would have had time to ask him what the hell he though he was doing and he would have realised it was not actually his gf). So ironically he was more or less hoisted by his own petard so to speak.

Jaysus that reads like a column from a 40 year old 'Womans Own" Mag.

I don't think anyone has suggested ramming a bunch of fives or pegging a partner when they are asleep to initiate sex is a clever thing to do.

Touching a partner in bed intimately can be a perfectly "normal" thing to do whether that partner be asleep, half asleep, cuddling half asleep, etc, it may not be in the boundaries of your relationship but that is up to you and your partner, your boundaries are not a stencil for what other couples or individuals do or don't get up to.

Lots of people are into lots of different things that certainly wouldn't fit in with my boundaries, but I'm not going to feel sorry for them or look down them or lecture them, because that would just be plain weird.

realitykeeper

Dante7 wrote: »

This sentence seems very harsh for the offence of drunkenly climbing into bed with someone and feeling them up. Other judges have given lesser sentences for anally raping children.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-jailed-for-sexually-assaulting-fiances-friend-on-night-of-engagement-party-37786159.html

I would be in favour of a justice system which requires the culprit to either pay lots of money or to work for the victim. If the victim is afraid of the culprit she could sell his labour to someone else. The present system is not working because the cost of incarceration is too high and there aren`t enough spaces anyway.

Ariadne

I think people are possibly getting crossed wires. I don't think I'd be happy if someone just shoved their fingers inside me while I was asleep, to wake me or not. However, touching, rubbing, fondling, caressing etc to wake me would be fine by me and I'd consider it to be quite normal.

Boggles

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the victim is afraid of the culprit she could sell his labour to someone else.

What? On donedeal?

I have a Registered Sex Offender willing to cut grass and power wash.

€200

Mrsmum

[QUOTE=Boggles;109357363 Lots of people are into lots of different things that certainly wouldn't fit in with my boundaries, but I'm not going to feel sorry for them or look down them or lecture them, because that would just be plain weird. [/QUOTE]


The only people I said I feel sorry for (on this topic) are women who wake up with fingers already inside them and I stand by that 100%. That's not inviting them to a party, that's dragging them there whether they like it or not.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

The only people I said I feel sorry for (on this topic) are women who wake up with fingers already inside them and I stand by that 100%. That's not inviting them to a party, that's dragging them there whether they like it or not.

Good for you.

But it was quite clear that your overall point was couples who have a different sexual boundary level to your own are to be scorned, lectured and looked down on.

Correct?

Mrsmum

Not correct at all.

jimgoose

Boggles wrote: »

Good for you.

But it was quite clear that your overall point was couples who have a different sexual boundary level to your own are to be scorned, lectured and looked down on.

Correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we've heard from several women in this thread, and while some would be quite happy with an intimate touch and/or rub waking them from sleep in the morning, none of them would be keen on the idea of being woken by inserted digits. I personally wouldn't wake my partner from sleep by initiating sex at all, but that is, of course, my personal take.

GreeBo

jimgoose wrote: »

I did nothing of the kind.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying then.

So do you think "an affectionate intimate touch of a partner who is in bed but still awake, albeit only just" is "rude and a bit weird" or not?

Boggles

jimgoose wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we've heard from several women in this thread, and while some would be quite happy with an intimate touch and/or rub waking them from sleep in the morning

I think one lady, the rest are aghast by it and think it is sexual assault.

I don't think the sample size is a true reflection TBF.

jimgoose wrote: »

, none of them would be keen on the idea of being woken by inserted digits. I personally wouldn't wake my partner from sleep by initiating sex at all, but that is, of course, my personal take.

Exactly

Boggles

Lecture

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't know if this thread is funny or sad. You would swear from some of the replies that if a guy can't go straight to his partner's sexual organs while in bed together, his sex life will be over. Top tip lads if you want to wake her up, maybe start kissing the back of her neck, her shoulders and arms and on your slow journey downwards,

Scorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

if his sexual skill level wasn't so inadequate, and he had instead began by stroking her cheek or her hair or kissing her shoulders etc instead of going straight to his end target,

Mrsmum wrote: »

Not correct at all.

Ah Tis.

Feisar

Boggles wrote: »

I think one lady, the rest are aghast by it and think it is sexual assault.

I don't think the sample size is a true reflection TBF.



Exactly

I asked the wifey last night and she had no problem with it, saying it'd be a nice way to be awoken on a Saturday morning. Obviously not a move for three in the morning on a school night when we both get up at 5:45ish.

jimgoose

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying then.

So do you think "an affectionate intimate touch of a partner who is in bed but still awake, albeit only just" is "rude and a bit weird" or not?

No, I don't. I didn't say anything about initiating sex, either.

jimgoose

Feisar wrote: »

I asked the wifey last night and she had no problem with it, saying it'd be a nice way to be awoken on a Saturday morning. Obviously not a move for three in the morning on a school night when we both get up at 5:45ish.

I actually did the same thing, same answer. No "digits" from deep sleep, though.